Theories and Research on Goal Setting in SelfRegulated Learning

Kim Trang 12/10/2012

GOAL SETTING IN SELF-REGULATED LEARNING Theories and Research on Goal Setting in Self-Regulated Learning Within the field of education, self-regulated learning (SRL) is of particular interest because self-regulatory behaviors and aspects of metacognition (e.g., goal setting, selfmonitoring) may predict academic achievement (Britton & Tesse, 1991; Sink, Barnett & Hixon, 1991). Time management skills (e.g., short range planning, time attitudes) were found to be related to academic achievement (Britton & Tesser, 1991). Scores on a time-management questionnaire were found to be better predictors (36% of variance accounted for) of college grades than SAT scores (4% of variance accounted for). In addition, measurements of metacognition, specifically planning, were moderately related to classroom and standardized tests of mathematics, reading, and science in middle-school students (Sink, Barnett & Hixon, 1991). Thus, high self-regulatory skills may promote achievement. The topic of SRL stems from a larger body of research in self-regulation. The literature on self-regulation has broadened conceptually and physically since the 1990s but has also led to

a fragmentation in the field (Baekaerts, Pintrich, & Zeidner, 2000). Research on self-regulation is conducted in a wide variety of areas in psychology including education, social, cognitive, health, and developmental. Given the diversity of research on self-regulation, it is difficult to come up with a concrete definition and a list of concepts that are associated with that definition. However, researchers in the field do agree that self-regulation involves the process of goal setting and the monitoring and regulation of behaviors to achieve those goals (Zimmerman, 2000; Carver & Scheier, 2000; Matthews et al., 2000). Goal setting and self-monitoring behaviors, especially metacognitive monitoring, are important aspects of SRL (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 2008). Effective self-regulators plan short and long-term goals and engage in self-monitoring by adjusting strategies (cognitive or behavioral) to reach those goals. In addition, goal setting can

GOAL SETTING IN SELF-REGULATED LEARNING also affect motivation; setting goals affect attention, effort, and persistence in achieving those goals (Zimmerman, 2008). To understand how learners use self-regulation to learn and study effectively, we must first look at models of self-regulation and how they can be applied to SRL. There are as many models of self-regulation as there are theories and definitions across the different areas of research. However, the social-cognitive model stands out among the others due to the conceptualization of self-regulation as an open system (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1992). Behaviorist views often focus on controlling behaviors through self-reinforcement or self-

imposed stimulus control which does not account for cognitive factors such as self-evaluation or self-monitoring. On the other hand, a largely cognitive model, such as an information systems approach, viewing self-regulation as functions in a feedback loop that is goal directed, downplays the role of environment influences (Carver & Scheier, 2000). A social-cognitive approach to self-regulation and SRL takes into account all variables (personal, behavioral, and environmental) that can influence goal attainment. In addition, viewing self-regulation as an open system allows for the inclusion of other variables such as selfefficacy that may play an important role in self-regulation and SRL. The development of selfregulation is of interest to researchers in education because studying factors in self-regulation may be the key to understanding elements in effective learning. There are many elements of selfregulation and SRL but this review will focus on goal setting which, based on research, is an essential key component and may even be a precursor to all other aspects of SRL. Theories on Self-Regulation

GOAL SETTING IN SELF-REGULATED LEARNING Social-Cognitive Perspective Social-cognitive approaches to self-regulation take a triadic view and incorporate environmental, personal, and behavioral variables in which one variable can influence the other two known as reciprocal causation (Bandura, 1989). The social-cognitive model emphasizes the processes individuals engage in during self-regulation. For example, having a model who is a high achiever because he/she self-regulates effectively can lead a child to also engage in selfregulated behaviors through vicarious reinforcement. Engaging in self-regulated behaviors may lead to high achievement which can lead to development of high self-efficacy. In this way, selfregulation can be seen as a feedback loop in which self-monitoring of the environmental and behavioral variables can feed back to the person and affect strategy use for attainment of goals (Zimmerman, 2000). From the previous example, engaging in self-regulated behaviors through modeling fed back to the development of self-efficacy. A child with higher self-efficacy may be more confident to try novel strategies, not modeled, towards the attainment of achievement goals. The development of self-regulatory skills occurs in a hierarchical fashion (Zimmerman, 2000). The first level involves observation of skilled models and the learning of skills and

strategies. For example, a child observing his piano teacher playing scales is engaging in the first level of development. The second level involves emulation of the learned skills in the presence or with assistance of the model. At this level, the child will play the scales in the presence of the teacher who is there to assist and give feedback. When the learned skills can be used in a different setting (outside of the presence of the model), the learner has developed self-control. At level three, the child can now practice the scales on his own at home. At the last level, selfregulation will be obtained with the use of learned skills across different settings; the child can

GOAL SETTING IN SELF-REGULATED LEARNING apply the scales to facilitate the learning of compositions. However, the maintenance of selfregulation is largely dependent on self-efficacy and motivation (Zimmerman, 2000). The child

may reach this last stage but fail to maintain it if he/she lacks motivation or has low self-efficacy for piano performance. The hierarchical system may seem contradictory to the open feedback loop but it is important to note that the interactions between the three variables can occur at any level. The development of self-regulatory skills is a process that the learner engages in towards goal attainment. Goal Setting in Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) Goal setting/ goal orientation Goal setting can be defined as setting specific and concrete goals whereas goal orientation refers to the types of goals learners set, mastery or outcome-directed (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Students with mastery orientation focus on learning and mastering the concepts while outcome-directed or performance oriented students tend to focus on their ability as compared to others. In addition, mastery orientation is more likely to promote intrinsic motivation for learning than performance orientation because students are not so focused on extrinsic rewards such as praises. When faced with difficult tasks, children with mastery orientation are more likely to maintain their use of successful strategies, positive affect, and effective self-monitoring (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Moreover, research shows goal setting and mastery-goal orientation may lead to higher achievement and improvements in academic achievement (Bernacki, Byrnes, & Cromley, 2012; Morisano et al., 2010; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1997). Students who participated in a one-time goal setting intervention had higher GPAs compared to a control group, who received a career assessment related intervention, four months later (Morisano et al., 2010). In addition, girls who

GOAL SETTING IN SELF-REGULATED LEARNING set goals performed better on a dart throwing task than girls who only practiced (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1997).. Similarly, Bernacki, Byrnes, and Cromley (2012) showed that masteryoriented individuals tend to use more self-regulated learning strategies such as highlighting, note-taking, and information exploration which may lead to higher academic performance. The researchers proposed a model in which self-regulated behaviors (e.g., monitoring, seeking information) were mediators between goal orientation and performance. In addition, when faced with difficult tasks, mastery-oriented and performance-oriented students utilize different cognitive and affective mechanisms (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Performance oriented students are more likely to attribute high effort (resulting in success or failure) to low ability and low effort resulting in success to high ability. On the other hand, mastery-oriented students view effort as a means for attaining desired goals and learning

outcomes. In addition, students also differ in their affective responses to difficulty or challenges. From a mastery orientation perspective, facing challenges can promote intrinsic rewards whereas challenges may lead to anxiety in a performance-oriented individual. From a social-cognitive perspective, behavior can be influenced by these two factors and how students differ in their cognitive and affective mechanism can influence their approaches to tasks. Girls who set mastery goals reported more satisfaction with their dart throwing performance and more interest in the task than girls who set outcome goals (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1997). Results suggest that mastery goal orientation may promote positive affect and interest in an activity and perhaps influence future involvement because people are more likely to engage in activity when they have intrinsic motivation. Overall, studies show a positive effect of goal setting and goal orientation on students achievement. Studying the underlying processes or mechanism of goal setting or goal orientation

GOAL SETTING IN SELF-REGULATED LEARNING may help researchers identify methods in promoting effective goal setting and mastery goal orientation. Model of Goal Setting in SRL One model views SRL as goal-directed feedback system where goals are the input or the motivators for the system (Carver & Scheier, 2000). Goals in this system are hierarchically

organized with lower level goals feeding to higher, more abstract goals at the top. For example, a behavior fulfilling a lower level goal may be taking a wounded dog to the vet and a higher level goal may be organizing a fundraiser for charity. Towards the top, the highest level is an abstract goal such as being a good community member. One of the benefits of having abstract goals at the top is that it allows more flexibility in attaining those goals because they can be obtained through multiple pathways (Carver & Scheier, 2000). Other goals that can also lead to being a good community member may be volunteering to clean up the neighborhood or organizing a neighborhood watch. In addition, effective goal setting involves setting short and long-term goals in a hierarchy wherein short-term goals provide feedback for higher achievement and progress towards long-term goals (Zimmerman, 2008). From the previous example, success in cleaning up the neighborhood and organizing a fundraiser can increase self-efficacy and provide feedback on behavior for further progress towards the more abstract goal of being a good community member. One study shows that children who set proximal goals for self-learning subtraction instructions showed more gains in their mathematical performance compared to those who set distal and no goals (Bandura & Schunk, 1981). In addition, those in the proximal goal condition also showed higher persistence for working on difficult items, higher interest in working on problems afterwards, and faster progress in instructional material. This provides evidence for the

GOAL SETTING IN SELF-REGULATED LEARNING hierarchical model of goal setting in SRL. Achievement of higher level distal goals may require setting more manageable proximal goals that feeds into other factors such as self-efficacy or interest and motivation; the pursuit of multiple proximal goals may be more effective for attaining distal goals and SRL. Multiple goals perspective

The multiple goals perspective focuses on the joint or interaction effects of goal type and other self-regulatory processes (Wentzel, 2002). In this model, three goal types that may influence academic achievement are mastery, performance, and social goals. From Zimmerman & Kitsantas (1997), girls who set self-directed mastery goals from the beginning and switched to performance goals showed the highest achievement. It is not enough to solely focus on mastery because performance goals may add a level of achievement standard that is necessary for high achievement. In addition, research on multiple goals theory show that a combination of mastery and performance goals may be adaptive (Pintrich, 2000). Students classified as high mastery/high performance had the highest level of self-efficacy for math, showed higher interest in the subject, and reported less use of self-handicapping. Results provide evidence for a new approach to goal setting theory that reassesses the value of performance goals. One study shows that performance goals may not always lead to lower performance. Participants assigned to a performance approach condition performed better than those in the mastery approach condition on a puzzle task (Senko & Harackiewicz, 2005). One reason proposed is that performance goals may exert more pressure on the individual and thus lead to higher outcomes. In the study, participants who pursued performance goals reported more pressure. A possible explanation for these results is that a performance goal approach may be more effective when performance is more important than learning as the outcome; in the study,

GOAL SETTING IN SELF-REGULATED LEARNING the puzzle task was something most participants were familiar with. Seijts & Latham (2001) showed that difficult mastery goals promoted performance when the task involves acquiring

knowledge and strategies. In a scheduling task that most students were not familiar with, difficult mastery goals lead to higher performance than difficult performance goals. Participants who pursued mastery goals reported higher self-efficacy before each task trial and this correlated significantly with performance. One reason proposed is that the discovery of task-relevant strategies promoted self-efficacy. This provides evidence to support the feedback model of SRL. At each trial, self-efficacy is influenced by previous performance and can affect subsequent performance, self-efficacy, or strategy use. Overall, results suggest that the effects of mastery and performance goals on performance may depend on the overall purpose of the task or the ultimate goal of the activity. Possible underlying motivators for some tasks and activities are social motivators or social goals. In the classroom, some social goals may be cooperating with classmates, following the rules, or respecting others. To be successful in the classroom, students often need to pursue both social and academic goals. One study shows high achieving, as defined by GPA, students are more likely to pursue social responsibility goals (be dependent and responsible, get things done on time) compared to low achieving students (Wentzel, 1989). Low achieving students were less likely to report trying to earn approval or to be dependent and responsible. However, a second study on the same sample shows SAT (verbal and math) scores were not related to any of the classroom goals. This provides evidence for examining classroom achievement from a multiple goals perspective. Students performance and motivation in the classroom may be affected by multiple goal pursuits. This multiple goal pursuit of social and academic goals may be what differentiates high achievers from low achievers. However, correlational results are not clear on

GOAL SETTING IN SELF-REGULATED LEARNING the specific relationship. More research needs to be conducted on the pursuit of multiple goals both inside as well as outside the classroom context. Conclusion

Self-regulation is a topic of interest in many different areas in psychology as well as other fields such as health and business. One key element identified in the self-regulatory literature is goal setting. Research shows goal setting and goal orientation are important factors in performance and achievement. Those who pursue set goals perform better on academic and nonacademic related tasks compared to those who pursue no goals (Bandura & Schunk, 1981; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1997). In addition, the type of goals or goal orientation may be a big factor in determining performance and achievement. Individuals who set mastery goals achieve at a higher level than those who set performance goals (Bernacki, Byrnes, & Cromley, 2012; Morisano et al., 2010; Seijts & Latham, 2001; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1997). Much of the literature is focused on effects of specific goals or goal orientation. However, a new perspective on the classic goal theory emphasizes the importance of multiple goals pursuit in achievement. A combination of mastery goals and performance goals may be adaptive and promote achievement (Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1997). In addition, the pursuit of social goals may also be related to high achievement in the classroom (Wentzel, 1989). Future research on goal setting and goal orientation should be directed at gathering more evidence to support the multiple goals model. More specifically, researchers can look at how different goal pursuits interact with self-regulatory behaviors to influence achievement. In addition, more studies can also be conducted on effects of different combinations of mastery or performance goals on achievement. Understanding factors underlying in goal setting and goal

GOAL SETTING IN SELF-REGULATED LEARNING orientation is important because the need for self-regulated learning has become more widespread with the development of online learning.

10

GOAL SETTING IN SELF-REGULATED LEARNING References

11

Ariely, D. & Wertenbroch, K. (2002). Procrastination, deadlines, and performance: Self-control by precommitment. Psychological Science, 13(3), 219-224). Baekaerts, M., Pintrich, P., & Zeidner, M. (2000). Self-regulation: An introductory overview. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation (pp.1-9). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Baekaerts, M. & Niemivirta, M. (2000). Self-regulated learning: Finding a balance between learning goals and ego-protective goals. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation (pp.417-450). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 11751184. Bandura, A. & Schunk, D. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(3), 586-595. Bernacki, M., Byrnes, J., & Cromley, J. The effects of achievement goals and self-regulated learning behaviors on reading comprehension in technology-enhanced learning environments. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37, 148-161. Britton, B. & Tesser, A. (1991). Effects of time-management practices on college grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 405-410. Carver, S. & Scheier, M. (2000). On the structure of behavioral self-regulation. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation (pp.41-84). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

GOAL SETTING IN SELF-REGULATED LEARNING Dweck, C. & Leggett, E. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychology Review, 95(2), 256-273.

12

Matthews, G., Schwean, V., Campbell, S., Saklofske, D., & Mohamed, A.C. (2000). Personality, self-regulation, and adaptation: A cognitive-social framework. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation (pp.171-207). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Morisano, D., Hirsh, J., Peterson, J., & Pihl, R., & Shore, M. (2010). Setting, elaborating, and reflecting on personal goals improves academic performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 225-264. Seijts, G. & Latham, G. (2001). The effect of distal learning, outcome, and proximal goals on a moderately complex task. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 291-307. Senko, C. & Harackiewicz, J. (2005). Achievement goals, task performance, and interest: Why perceived goal difficulty matters. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 17391753. Wentzel, K. (1989). Adolescent classroom goals, standards for performance, and academic achievement: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 131142. Wentzel, K. (2002). Motivation and achievement in adolescence: A multiple goals perspective. In D. Schunk, & J. Meece (Eds). Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 287-306). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Zimmerman, B. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation (pp.13-39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

GOAL SETTING IN SELF-REGULATED LEARNING

13

Zimmerman, B. (2008). Goal setting: A key proactive source of academic self-regulation. In D. Schunk, & B. Zimmerman (Eds.). Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning (pp. 267-295). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Zimmerman, B. & Kitsantas, A. (1997). Developmental phases in self-regulation: Shifting from process goals to outcome goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 29-36. Zimmerman, B. & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Perceptions of efficacy and strategy use in the self-regulation of learning. In D. Schunk & J. Meece (Eds.). Student perceptions in the classroom (pp.185-207). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.